In re Estate of Ndolo (Deceased) [2026] KEHC 15923 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS

SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 510 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NTHEEU KIMEU NDOLO (DECEASED)

NDULULU KANAMI............................................................PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

VERSUS

KATHAWA KIMEU NDOLO........................................................................APPLICANT

RULING

1. This ruling is in respect to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 17th January, 2019 basically seeking revocation and/or nullification of Grant of Letters of Administration (Intestate) made to the Petitioner/Respondent herein. I have carefully perused the proceedings in this matter and the Applicant’s counsel’s written submissions dated 11th November 2025. The Applicant admits that the suit property is situated at Makueni County hence the matter ought to have been filed at Makueni Law Courts. Both the Chief’s letters confirm that the deceased was buried in Makueni County.

2. On 15th May 2025, the Applicant’s application dated 17th January, 2019 was heard by way of Viva voce evidence and a witness by the name Kavau Kimeu testified and thereafter the matter was referred to Court Annexed Mediation for a possible resolution. It is not clear whether the parties ever went for mediation. On 12th June 2025, counsel for the Applicant appeared before court and requested for an early hearing date for the reason that his witnesses were elderly and sick. The court requested him to file an application under certificate on the same for the court’s consideration.

3. On 16th September 2025 when the matter came before court, Mrs Isika Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/Respondent indicated that she had filed an application dated 30th July 2025 seeking to cease acting for the Petitioner/Respondent although she had not served the application upon the Petitioner/Respondent. The court directed that the application to be served and the same was fixed for hearing on 10th November 2025.

4. On 10th November 2025, Mrs Isika and the Petitioner were present in court and the Petitioner having no objection to Mrs Isika ceasing acting for her, the application dated 30th July 2025 was allowed. Thereafter, the Petitioner informed court that the matter had been settled as per her letter dated 4th June 2024.

5. On 3rd February 2026 Mr Mutua, Counsel for the Applicant appeared in court in the absence of the Petitioner/Respondent and requested that the matter be assigned a ruling date due to the parties’ old age. However, the court fixed a mention date for 24th February 2026 and directed that the Petitioner/Respondent be served with the mention notice.

6. On 24th February 2026, Counsel for the Applicant informed court that the Petitioner/Respondent had been served with the application dated 17th January 2019 and that a return of service dated 23rd February 2026 had been filed. Counsel sought for directions on the application dated 17th January 2019. Directions were given for the application to be heard on 24th March 2026.

7. On 24th March 2026 when the application came up for hearing, the Petitioner/Respondent was absent and Counsel for the Applicant informed court that the Petitioner/Respondent had been served on 25th February 2026 and again a return of service had been filed. The court directed the application dated 17th January 2019 to be heard within set timelines and a mention date of 29th June 2026 was given for purposes of fixing a ruling date. The Applicant was further directed to serve the Petitioner/Respondent with the next mention date.

8. On 29th June 2026, again the Petitioner/ Respondent was absent. The court reserved a ruling date for 5th October 2026 with leave of 14 days to the Petitioner/Respondent to file and serve response submissions.

9. From the above chronology of the proceedings in the matter, I have just established that, it was not brought to the attention of the court by either party that the dispute in this matter relate to the deceased who was domiciled, died and was buried in Makueni County and the deceased’s suit property herein is situated in Makueni County and not in Machakos County where this matter was filed. This court is of the considered view that Makueni High Court is well placed to hear and determine the matter.

10. Additionally, I have keenly perused the affidavits of service purportedly filed by the Applicant alleging service upon the Petitioner/Respondent. None of the Affidavits of service show that the Petitioner/Respondent was ever served with a Hearing Notice for the application or the directions for leave to the Petitioner/Respondent to file and serve submissions. What I fathom from the foregoing is that the Petitioner was never made aware of the hearing of the application dated 17th January 2019 or the directions to file and serve response submissions.

11. Accordingly, I will not proceed to write the ruling on the application dated 17th January 2019, rather I will direct that this file be transferred to Makueni High Court at the earliest opportunity and be placed before the Presiding Judge, Makueni High Court for directions.

12. The Deputy Registrar, Machakos High Court is directed to assist in transmission of the physical file to Makueni High Court.

It is so ordered.

RULING DATED & SIGNED AT MACHAKOS THIS 5TH OCTOBER 2026

NOEL I. ADAGI

JUDGE

DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS AT MACHAKOS THIS 5TH OCTOBER 2026.